Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Petey_Alchemist writes "With Super Tuesday coming up and the political field somewhat winnowed down, the process of picking the nominees for the next American President is well underway. At the same time, the Internet is bustling through a period of legal questions like Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment. All of these are just a few of the host of issues that the next President will be pressured to weigh in on during his or her tenure. Who do you think would be the best (or worst) candidate on Internet issues?"

But not the best candidate to get rid of the nanny state. I don't want to be led by my president.
I want to lead my own life and my own endeavors. I don't want to be spied on by the Government, and
I don't want to give it a 3rd of my income so it can redistribute it however someone in Washington sees fit.
Redistributing my wealth is my own damn business. Not the Governments.

Why is this moderated as Flame Bait? This is the truth. We are supposed to be the enterprising free. We can't be that if the government tells us how much milk to drink, how to live and who we can marry. On top of that, we get to pay them 30% or more of our paycheck for them to say things like "Hmm, where DID we put that 9 billion dollars?"
Say what you want about the current crop of Republicans. All but one of them are pandering old school politicians. Hillary and Obama (yes, him too) are both part of the political machine. Check out his record. He is about changing the guard, but not the message. Wow, the stormtroopers get new uniforms, but they are still building the death star, folks.

Their plans would turn it from bad to worse — from the business-chosen insurance plans to the government chosen. It has to be individual-chosen instead. You'd be able to keep your insurer (who will remain stuck with your "pre-existing condition") regardless of your place of employment (or lack thereof).

None of the Republicans do. This vote is easy.

That's a lie. Matt Romney — a Republican — created a workable health-insurance system in M

"No wonder you posted as an AC - your answer is the same any politician would give when asked a question - use a lot of BBBs (bullshit bingo buzzwords) to avoid actually giving an answer."

I don't think that that is entirely fair, not least because you go on the attack before actually stating your case as to why transparency of stakeholder interests has absolutely no affect on the mentioned issues.

Science and Technology aren't (or at least shouldn't) be about which agendas are popular at the moment, but e

Its entirely fair - the magic phrase "transparency in government" isn't going to fix the housing bubble, the deficit, the lack of universal medical care - heck, it avoids every single concrete issue the article blurb mentions.

Take the issue of net neutrality... those who care can find out everything they need to know. We don't need "transparency" in government - we need some common sense.

A good example is software patents. Making the process completely transparent won't fix that - only a change of law will.

Ditto for health care. Only a change of law will fix that - not transparency.

The housing bubble bust? Only house prices deflating to their historic norms (2.5 to 3x local income) will fix that. "Transparency" won't. And if it means that a couple of big banks fail because they got too greedy, that's their shareholders' problem, not the government, nor the taxpayer. Throwing a trillion bux at it won't fix the underlying problem - overly inflated housing values. "Transparency" sure won't fix it.

I'm sick and tired of politicians who don't tell it like it is and think we're stupid, which I guess means pretty much all main-stream politicians.

Transparency is a good thing, but it will not solve any of the problems currently facng the US and the rest of the world. Only concrete actions. For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it. Specifically, what laws you intend to pass. Ditto for health care, the deficit, etc. Not "policy" - which can change, but LAW. That would be real transparency.

For example, if its the intention of the government to inflate its way out of the current bubble bust and deficit, tell us. (7 years of 10% inflation per annum should about do it - but you'll end up with a US dollar worth < $0.20 on world markets).

If you've never worked for a Government, ask someone you know who has. They'll have plenty of examples of bad decisions, blatant abuses, borderline (and beyond) criminal actions which pass due to an order or ethos coming down from above, which cannot be questioned or publicised.

Software patents are a good example: Of course only a change of law will fix that situation, but without the transparency to see who is lobbying who on the issue, where the money flows, it won't even be debated.

"For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it."

Please respond to the point I made earlier about S&T not being about who knows the right answers (or who can spout the most convincing ones at the time), but who can create the environment where the right answer can be determined.

Which means absolutely nothing as far as any of the issues mentioned in the summary: "Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment".
No wonder you posted as an AC - your answer is the same any politician would give when asked a question - use a lot of BBBs (bullshit bingo buzzwords) to avoid actually giving an answer.

Libertarianism is the new Communism: it sounds good in theory, but in practice just doesn't work.

Libertarian philosophy is in large part responsible for the failure in Iraq. After all, if the solution to bad government is no government, all we have to do is get rid of Saddam and the economy will take off and society will flourish, right? And we can have Halliburton coordinate the rebuilding instead of the State Department and have Blackwater mercenaries do jobs in place of the U.S. Army. But it didn't work

Bush and his neocon buddies are completely opposed to Libertarianism. They've hijacked the Republican party, and they'd rather have Hillary Clinton than a libertarian like Ron Paul.

Iraq is a contractor's wet dream. Big government contracts are awarded to US companies, while soldiers die to protect American assets. This is exactly what libertarians oppose, and it pisses me off that you've tied the one group of people who've consistently opposed this war with the mess that is Iraq.

Iraq doesn't show that a free market needs government(*). It only shows that under a civil war and illegal occupation nothing works.

Your comment talked about how the lack of government ended up being a bad thing... well of course it was! The markets that libertarians embrace rely on a functional legal system and other services of government to provide the foundation on which they operate. Then, libertarians spend all this time talking about the enforcement of rights, enforcement that would be provided by governments.

The solution to bad government is not no government, but a fixed government, one that keeps people from screwing with each other but largely stands out of their way, allowing people the freedom to make of themselves what they want.

Libertarians recognize this. The lack of a government is often as bad a failure as a bad one.

I've never actually met a self-professed Libertarian that wasn't primarily motivated by greed - it only takes a little questioning to get past their parroting of the party line and realize that their core belief isn't "government shouldn't be involved with..." but "I don't want to pay for that".

The talent of a political candidate is proportional to the strength of the reality-distortion field s/he can maintain during the whole campaign. An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.

An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.

Yes, I agree that Ron Paul has no chance.

However, there's a different between being unbending in one's ideals and being unbending in one's understanding of the world; the latter leads to an inability or unwillingness to understand or empathize with the motivations of one's opponents, and that leads to the political environment we have today. Much of what makes Obama appealing is his willingness to think things over from perspectives other than his own and strike considered compromises that still accomplish his intended goals while making people who disagreed feel like they weren't completely steamrolled. Hillary strikes me as the win-at-any-cost type -- but winning at any cost means making the other side lose, and that leads to still more division and partisan hatred.

If Paul has no chance, it will be precisely because of all the otherwise well-meaning people who keep saying "Paul has no chance".

The "wasted vote" is a myth, or at best a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you do not vote for who you WANT to win, then someone you do not want will win. Period. It is as simple as that. Thinking about it any other way is nothing more than second-guessing, or mental jerking off.

The problem is you vote for who you want to win, with no ability to say who you don't.Random numbers and names pulled out of my ass as an example:30% of the people wanted Ron Paul to win and hated Romney30% of the people wanted Obama to win and hated Romney40% of the people wanted Romney to win.More people didnt want Romney to be president, yet under our system he would win.Arguably this is what got Bush in office.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for Paul, just that it isn't as simple as voting for who

If Paul has no chance, it will be because his positions are interesting at best, and laughable at worst. I like libertarian approaches to a lot of things, but there are some things that a government has to provide if it doesn't want the nation to slide into feudalism.

You know, I'll bite on your cointelpro bullshit.
Nothing that Ron Paul has ever said or done is in anyway supportive of racism. He has for many decades supported individual Freedoms and Liberty which are concepts that are diametrically opposed to racism. Racism cannot exist when you have Freedom ideals that treat individuals as such and not as part of a group. Racism comes from creating groups of people and judging likewise.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is the republican candidate with the most support from minorities. It has been pointed out time and time again and unless you start accusing non-caucasians of throwing their support behind a racist candidate in some uninformed way (yeah right) you have no argument.

Everything that Dr. Paul has ever done and all the ideals he stands for seek the end of racism. The entire accusation was constructed by professional counterintelligence personel. The same types who run scenarios on stealing elections and what would happen if they were to assassinate Ron Paul.

Unfortunately for them anyone who actually looks into it or even just hears his side of the story [youtube.com] will realize it's a joke.

Also, calling a respectable candidate who's served in congress for 20 years and has a respectable record a "batshit crazy racist loon" is quite possibly the worst ad hominem attack I have ever heard in my life. It shows you have no ground to stand on to debate his views without distorting them and have to focus on attacking the man.

But it's ok, the vast majority of people see through your games little cointelpro agent and we'll be knocking on your door soon demanding you pay your dues to our society.

Any candidate that has received money (directly or indirectly) from a RIAA/MPAA affiliate or a telco (for example) is out of the question when it comes to internet matters.

If that's your concern, wouldn't the candidate getting his funding from a much larger number of small-money individual donations make more sense than the candidate getting most of her money from a smaller number of bigger donors? (Damn English, not having grammatically correct genderless singular pronouns).

In the context of the interview, he was really referring to the internet as more of a government project. Replace "the Internet" with something like "new police stations" and you get the idea. That doesn't mean he was laying bricks or training officers, but that he supported it as a government initiative.

Technology is part of culture, too. And I believe Obama is probably the best candidate from the perspective of overcoming a lot of the old blue-state/red-state cliches and antagonisms. It may sound hackneyed to say this, but I actually did feel stirrings of patriotic (in the sense of commitment to a community, not in terms of jingoism, nationalism, or "national branding") feeling after his South Carolina speech. So much of the divisive rhetoric we see in forums are really perpetuations of crude stereotypes and tired arguments which rely on them.

If there is anything Obama connotes to me, above and beyond his policy positions (which I am generally OK with - though I'm also OK with a lot of HRC's positions, but can't stand her) its the return of a culture of listening, of not seeing conservatives or liberals as "the enemy", but as fellow citizens. It's an idealistic position, but maybe I'm a little tired of cynicism. "Cynicism is the only form in which base souls can approach honesty." - F. Nietzsche.

Let's check the candidates registrar, web hosting provider and server platform. This should be interesting. Maybe not meaningful, however. (Speaking of not meaningful...the lameness filter doesn't want lists of facts for comparison so I have to add length to the lines.)

First, let's look at Obama (he's the magical negro, the man not from Hope but offering hope to America, the ethical campaigner compared to ruthless Clinton):

Domain Name: BARAKOBAMA.COM
Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.

(Obviously going for the "Fabulous" vote there...)

Web host: Saavis
Server: Apache

Saavis -- expensive. No game playing here. Says Apache, but doesn't say what the OS is. Smart move.

Now, McCain (the Hero, the maverick republican who shares a platform more like Clinton than other Republicans, he's the anti-establishment establishmentarian):

Domain Name: JOHNMCCAIN.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.

(Going for the "home vote" and GoDaddy.com, while it sucks ass, is indigenous to AZ)

Now, Romney, the Northeastern governor (the Mormon who was, until recently, pro-choice; son of a one time popular Republican; good-looking but flip-flopping candidate):

Domain Name: MITTROMNEY.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.

(He's Mormon so perhaps UT has not registrars so he's pandering to the regional vote by using AZ-based GoDaddy?)

Web host Rackspace.com, Ltd.
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)

Rackspace! Heavy advertiser on Slashdot, employer of more RHCEs than Red Hat,... tech savvy move! And running on LAMP. Nice.

Now, Clinton (the Senator who offers 8 more years of old-time change-- huh? A return to the future that was 1992-2000. Another opportunity for Bill to get some intern love in the Oval Office; a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden and correct a mistake from the last Clinton presidency):

Domain Name: HILLARYCLINTON.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

The establishment candidate using the establishment registrar, I see. (Change is... hard to find with HRC).

So, also Rackspace, but made to look like Paul Holcomb...kind like a lot of the positions HRC takes -- looks like this but really is that. no surprise. Oh, even though at Rackspace using a Microsoft solution. Always playing both sides doesn't she?

And, of course, what about Ron Paul (he's the Libertarian that is really, really a Republican this time, Ok?; the pro-legalizing drugs, anti-war on terror candidate; the one who says things worth cheering and jeering in the same debate)?

Lack of universal, affordable health care [...] Is Obama going to toss out the HMOs?

No, but he's going to give them competition [barackobama.com]. Private healthcare plans will remain available, but a publicly funded healthcare plan will be available in addition, providing competition. Individuals will be able to get rebates based on their income level to help pay for whichever healthcare system (be it a private company or the public one) they choose. This may not be "tossing out" the HMOs, but it's surely not going to make them happy.

Foreign policy in a shambles

Yup, it's a mess. However, Obama has a great deal of credibility in the foreign press [ruralvotes.com], and being a relative newcomer to national politics (having most of his experience state-level and below) helps him disassociate himself (and his administration) from the US's disastrous policies of late. Indeed, his stated intention to avoid some of the US's more longstanding and counterproductive policies (like refusing to even talk to folks we disagree with) is likely to do some good.

As for economic issues -- yes, the US economy is a mess. Obama has a plan, of course -- every serious candidate claims they do, after all -- but I haven't looked at the details well enough to support it here.

So what you're saying is he wants to do his darnedest to make sure there's less money to expand businesses, less money to hire new employees, less available capital to grow the economy, lower returns on investment, and less retirement certainty... then just hope for the best?

Good plan from his point of view: once we have to all beg the government for sustenance, those in power will have really nice positions.

Did you actually follow the link and read the policy descriptions? That list is not policy descriptions, it's sound bites. There's significantly more detail on the site. Cynicism is an appropriate attitude to our political process and it's participants but if you don't take the opportunity to back it up with evidence it's just ignorance. So... I'm not impressed by your lack of effort.

I agree, Obama actually understands technology, patent issues and creative rights. I'm Canadian, so my vote doesn't matter however I've noticed other candidates seem to be less educated in these areas, or relying on basic knowledge; however Obama seems to have personal knowledge in these areas.

Luckily, gun rights are something that are easily re-granted through the court system and by future administrations. Economic and foreign policy, on the other hand, are much harder to fight for and to correct past mistakes.

Check out the Technology section of his website. He knows what's up with net neutrality and privacy laws, and vows to change it (although that's what everyone says, I think he could really help the tech world)

Hillary Clinton, however, could possibly crash the global economy. She wants to crack down on violent video games, which, due to the pins and needles the economy is on right now, could devastate the economy if a major sector of the gaming industry would collapse. She even supports "media literacy" in the United States (aka censorship).

In my opinion Obama could do a lot of good for America. He is not a conservative, so he would be more likely to reform and change stuff that is in dire need of it.

This isn't news - for more than a year, its been predicted that more than 2 million people will lose their homes.

Mostly people who took out variable-rate loans when interest rates were at historic lows and housing prices at historic highs. This definitely sucks for them, but shouldn't stupidity have consequences sometimes?

The damage from the overvalued dollar threatens to be even more dangerous. With President Bush largely maintaining the high dollar policy, the trade deficit and foreign debt have continued to rise at a rapid pace. The current account deficit hit an incredible $660 billion in the most recent quarter, more than 5.7 percent of GDP. This deficit will push total foreign debt to more than $3 trillion by the end of this year. On its current path, it will exceed $7 trillionapproximately 50 percent of GDPby 2009.

The deficit is actually $9 trillion, not $7 trillion, and that's a full year ahead of schedule. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"

But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.

One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We now know that not everyone who wants a home should be able to get one just because they can fog a mirror.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

this was the initial go-ahead by Bush for the private sector to eas up on lending standards for mortgages

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

so the mortgage industry came out with all sorts of snake-oil financial schemes, to extend the "dream" everywhere - ev

Ron Paul thinks anything the government does is socialism. He would never have let the government invest in the Internet the way that it did, and we wouldn't have one now (certainly not the equal-access Internet that's getting everyone online). He wouldn't do anything to stop telcos from blocking or slowing traffic that competes with theirs, or doublecharging servers and consumers (quadruplecharging, really) who already pay for bandwidth, but must pay extra for "on-time" bandwidth ("Network Neutrality").

Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".

The Internet is one of the most obvious places where the people need the government as our collective representative to protect ourselves from the powerful exploiters of the people. There aren't a lot of monarchs in a position to hurt the American people anymore, but we've got plenty of dictatorial, aggressive, imperial corporations. And Ron Paul's government would stay out of the business of protecting us from them.

Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".

Umm... I though RP wanted to kick corporations out of the Federal Government. Hence, there would be no NSA ATT wiretaps or kickbacks to the telco/cable monopolies or FCC regulations as we know them now.

I think people forget that empowering the Federal Government just means that it leads to corporations investing more control over it. Although I disagree on Paul on many social issues, I will agree that the current situation in DC is pretty much forgone. The problem is that the Federal government is being used to solve problems which ends up being lucrative to a subset of parties.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you will never acheive a neutering of corporations without fixing the root core of the problem which is "corporate personhood" which Ron Paul is highly against.

Simply arguing over who is going to pass bills that support technology or wedge issues is ignoring the 9 trillion dollar white elephant in the room along with the billion dollar war that appears to have no end in sight.

Unfortunately, neither of the major parties seem to acknowledge that we are in for some hard times and that the current economic and political system has some major issues that might be insurmountable in the near future.

I'm tired of people saying "I like 'X cannidate's' message! It inspires me!"

Not to goodwin this, but Hitler inspired people too and we really need to be pragmatic about the next leader. If not Paul, then someone else who at best is nothing more than good technocrat and not an ideologist who's going to drag us down even further.

No, you're the one saying wiretapping is just the NSA wiretapping, and reducing all the Internet violations I mentioned to that one item Paul says he's against. Which, BTW, is exactly what Paul supporters typically do with their favorite Paul position, like ending the Iraq War, while ignoring his other positions that they should hate (like his opposing the church/state separation, or eliminating public education, or any of his other harebrained schemes).Paul would let AT&T "police the Internet for pirac

You do not understand Libertarianism. You are confusing it with anarchy. They are very different things.

Others here have confused Fascism with anarchy ("corporate anarchy"). They are very different things.

Libertarians support the FREE MARKET. Free markets do not operate where monopoly or oligopoly exist. Libertarians do not support a corporate-run, completely unregulated economy! That is simply not a free market.

Also, a truly free market accounts for real costs as part of its operation. Therefore, in a real free market, producers bear the cost of the societal problems they cause (pollution, etc.), rather than that burden being borne by the taxpayers. Is there anything wrong with that? And the reason things are not done that way NOW, is because of corporate interests being too involved in government and thereby subverting the free market process. Contrary to what many people are saying, Libertarianism addresses and strives to solve that issue. It is the current corporate-state that preserves and worsens it.

I could go on for quite a while... but I strongly urge you to do some real research about a topic -- especially if it is a major political party -- before you go around spouting such nonsense as the above. I am not trying to say you are an idiot, but it sure makes you look like one.

Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?I am not trying to say you are a liar, but blanket assertions about the Ron Paul your personal version of "libertarianism" imagine him to be sure make you look like one.

BTW, if Paul were a "Libertarian", he wouldn't be a member of the Republican Party. Even when he ran as the LP nominee, he didn't leave the RP or join the LP, and that was 20 years ago. He's at best

First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. "He is the real deal" has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they're all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

Second, I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

First the importantly balanced: You'll read he's a supporter of Net Neutrality. No surprise there. But read carefully what Net Neutrality for Obama is. There's no blanket ban on offering better service; the ban is on contracts that offer different terms to different providers for that better service. And there's no promise to police what's under the technical hood (beyond the commitment already articulated by Chairman Powell): This is a sensible and valuable Net Neutrality policy that shows a team keen to get it right -- which includes making it enforceable in an efficient way, even if not as radical as some possible friends would like.

Second, on the important: As you'll read, Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.

He doesn't have a stated position on monopoly enforcement that I'm aware of. His default position is a "hands off" libertarian policy of letting the market handle most things.

I'm divided on this, to tell you the truth. I think the market addresses most concerns, but this may be one of those exceptions where intervention is needed. On the other hand, most monopolies are government sponsored. Also, look at how the "big government" approach of the EU fining Microsoft daily. That doesn't seem to really s

Don't you think it's telling that the one sector of the economy on which you have the most knowledge and interest is, for you and many libertarians, the one place where you conceive of an "exception" to the presumption of the optimality of non-intervention?

Perhaps if you had as abiding an interest in agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, you would see more "exceptions" to the idea that regulation is bad.

With agriculture, I was thinking more of the FDA and other standards-producing bodies which mandate sanitary conditions. Of course, not every regulation is good, and many are either bad or corrupt. But that's different from the blanket presumption that things would be better without them.I don't like corporate welfare, but the more you look at the airline bailout after 9/11, the more you'd understand how disastrous it would have been for the economy to have let that industry just collapse. Which proves my p

Monopolies are nearly all caused by big government. Without the special privileges government gives them it would be extremely difficult to get into a monopoly position, and once there they would have to keep prices low and provide good service, lest new firms arose to compete for that pie.Big government encourages big business with regulatory and tax structures that encourage bigness. When it takes an army of accountants and lawyers to do business, only those firms large enough to afford an army of account

On the first, Ron Paul suggests, reluctantly I understand, that states should handle marriage themselves.

His position, as stated in the Candidates@Google interview, is that marriage is a religious issue and shouldn't be a concern of the state. He said something to the effect of "People can do what they want, and call it what they want, and the government should have no part of it".

On DoE (Department of Education), conservatives have long been lobbying for various subjects, like history and biology...

Ron Paul has some admirable positions, but his supporters should recognize that when it comes down to it he is effectively a social conservative and his policies if implemented completely would, if they didn't destroy the economy right off the bat, probably turn the country completely over to corporate rule.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian, but Ron Paul makes me shudder. It was an interesting exercise to go through the US Libertarian Party platform [lp.org] and compare with all Ron Paul's positions that I think are way wrong. On every single one (abortion, free trade, anti-immigrant xenophobia), his positions are the opposite of the party's planks.

On the abortion issue, half the country wants a constitutional amendment that bans abortion and half the country wants a constitutional amendment that allows abortions. I would say this is a perfect example of a divisive issue that should be left up to the states. The grandparent said "He would allow states to ban abortion"... I would also add "He would enable states to *allow* abortion", even though he is personally opposed to it after being an obstetrician (s

I'm going to plug my little non-partisan politics page [binadopta.com] that features substantial interviews with each of the candidates. There is an interesting crop of people to choose from this time, moreso than in the past couple elections, it seems. Or maybe it's just because the stakes seem so much higher now?

It seems terribly shortsighted, in a time where foreign policy is so critical and calls for changes in domestic arrangements (particularly health care) are powerful, to be voting on such narrow issues as technology positions. I won't say these things are unimportant (and would love as much as anyone else here to see someone who would have us withdraw from WIPO and end most IP protection), but by comparison there are far more important things to focus on.

I was on the fence last summer and fall as to whether Obama was "the real deal." That is, I was until I saw the Q&A portion [youtube.com] of his November 2007 talk at the Google campus. This was my true turning point.

It is a typical question and answer session with some pretty advanced questions lobbed by the Googlers and moderated by Eric Schmidt. It is, beyond any combative debate or stump speech, a truly (+5) insightful conversation about his views on technology.

(As others have mentioned, Senator Obama's Technology [barackobama.com] page is also a helpful peek at what he stands for in case you don't have the patience for the ~20 min. video)

It's disturbing to me that anyone would even think of basing their vote in this presidential election on tech issues. My god, we're involved in a ruinous war, and when it comes to civil liberties we're sliding down the slippery slope into fascism.

I don't think it's so far out. Tech issues underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly as important as foreign policy.But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation build

Not only does Lawrence Lessig endorse Obama, he's actually advising him on copyright policy. This could bring about the single biggest policy shift in Washington on copyright, IP, and free culture that we've seen in years.

The mormons I know are very friendly, caring, family oriented, smart, and law abiding. I'm paying close attention to Romney this election because I think it will be good for America to have someone with those qualities in office. Running a country isn't that much different from running a business. It all boils down to doing cost/benefit analysis on a bunch of huge multivariable problems. I think Romney has the best brain for that compared to the other candidates. He has already proven he can do succes

Unfortunately, Bain & Company made lots of money by advising folks to send jobs overseas.Also I lived in Boston while he was governor and saw what an absolute overreaching fucktard he was during the whole gay marriage thing. Instead of just letting the issue make its way through the Massachusetts courts and legislature he tried time and again to interrupt the process and make it go his way. Having seen what he'd do on an issue as harmless as gay marriage, I can only imagine what he'd do with the War on

Romney is great if you love telcos and hate net neutrality, hate CC and IP law reform. Just because someone ran succesful business doesn't make them informed about technology and IP law (especialy IP law)

This will be quite the political discussion if everyone who doesn't say they love socialism and hate corporations (and hate the rich, religious people, the military, etc, etc, etc) gets modded to -1 Flamebait.

Why even ask the question if there's not going to be a serious discussion? Just make it a poll so the "moderators" can say "Ron Paul" or one of the socialists instead of voting to censor other perspectives with their mod points.

Paul understands economics better than any of the other candidates, in my estimation. While I'm sure Romney knows all about microeconomics and running a business, the debates have not shown that he knows anything of economics on a national or global scale.

Paul does not look at business in the way you describe either. He detests taxes that redistribute wealth to anybody - be it the lobbyists that are in bed with congress or through nanny programs that sustain a welfare state. He believes that free markets are the best thing for technology. While it's nice to think that the government spends money on research, you have to remember a few things: a) they have to get that money from somewhere (taxes) and b) by subsidizing technological research, unsubsidized programs suffer. As you mention, the government is likely to favor subsidies for politically-connected unproductive folks, so Paul would say: don't subsidize it at all.

If you want to actually accomplish something, then one of the candidates who can accomplish something might be better.

In Arizona, like many/most other states, only registered party members can vote in their party's presidential primary election.

I look at the present election as-if it's already November: who could possibly beat Hillary or Obama? Based on the numbers [opensecrets.org], 'dark horse' candidate Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with a snowball's chance in Phoenix. In comparison to Clinton and Obama, McCain has no money and no support for his "100 years in Iraq" platform, and Romney is just spending his own money to try to buy the nomination.

So, if you're registered as a Republican, a vote for Romney or McCain is a vote for Obama or Clinton. A vote for Paul counts for something.

Ron Paul is the best candidate because he tried to prevent the housing bubble, by introducing bills to abolish the Federal Reserve system. He gets no coverage from the Media-Political Complex because his platform is to take their toys away.

As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has done nothing to distance herself from Bill Clinton's 'free trade' policies (NAFTA, GATT, WTO), which made the housing bubble much worse than it otherwise would have been. Clinton's recession arrived the first time in March, 2001, which was too late for him to get credit, and too early for it to be Bush's fault. Bush tried the standard Keynesian "stimulus" recession remedy, but all the stimulus flowed into Chinese factories [slashdot.org] and non-productive units of housing. Now the economy's goose is cooked, so we should be thinking about who best to lead the country's reindustrialization. Obama may lack experience, but he's not evil.

So, if you're registered as a Republican, a vote for Romney or McCain is a vote for Obama or Clinton. A vote for Paul counts for something.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that 180 degrees.

Romney is the most conservative among fellow Republicans. He would be leading ahead of McCain if it wasn't for the Huckabee votes hamstringing him. McCain is currently leading because of the remaining "blue blooded" Republican's and most (if not all) of the independent voters.

You know what they say: "Lead, follow or get out of the way."
Ron Paul isn't a leader or a follower...
I believe Ron Paul and for the same reason, Dennis Kucinich aren't ever fit to be President for what you said. They both have never accomplished anything. I was talking to a state level Democrat in Ohio earlier this week about Kucinich, and what she said was something to the extent: "Dennis is a great man, and has never compromised himself, yet he hasn't ever accomplished anything. To me it is more important to make some progress than none. I'd rather go 75% towards my goal and be only 25% away than have gotten nowhere."
I think that applies directly to Ron Paul, he may have never voted to raise taxes, but he hasn't ever accomplished anything. Politics is accomplishing your goals and improving your country, but it is also requires a great art of compromising, not to the extent that it compromised your character, but far enough that it will accomplish most of your goals.
The President of the United States needs to be someone who can reach a compromise.

Yeah, don't vote for the guy who authored more than 10 books on economics, foreign policy and civil rights and has by far the best voting record in the House of Representatives.Americans say they want change, but it's all bullshit. When the time comes, they vote for variants of the same old corrupt politicians. Obama may be better than Hillary or McCain, but he's still in bed with big business and his concept of economic responsibility isn't nearly good enough.

I'm still not persuaded. For maximum persuasiveness in communications, can you please try using more all-caps text and putting in a lot swear words and additional information-free accusations? Everyone loves that stuff.

> I actually agree with you. But voting for yourself is voting your conscience.

Only if you actually want the job. And that assumes you believe you could doas good a job as the candidate. I'm sure neither is true for me - I *don't*want the job and I don't have the patience to be good at it. Maybe the parentposter is in a similar position.

Position on issues is important, but there are other things to consider.

I back the Federal Reserve system. When can I expect my check to arrive?

Also, this is the USA. We have a good quality of life in the USA compared to most other countries past and present. "Our" lives are not a "living hell". Since you are so demonstrably wrong about obvious, observable quality of life, what insight could you possibly have on the "cause" of that "problem"?

The media doesn't represent him that way, but Obama has plenty of substance; it just takes a little research to find it, rather than listing to the sound bites on the evening news. Go do your homework -- you'll be very pleasantly surprised.